Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Absolutely. I can think of a scenario where Pearce would have gotten my vote, namely one where we were voting in the 1880's, but to paraphrase Chris Rock, "I'm not saying it's right, but I understand why people voted for him."

Even Joe Start, aka the infinitely careered one, makes some sense, even if he in no way fits my paradigm of what it means to be a meritorious player.

With Foster, we took a statistical mapping of him from a site, whose tendency to significantly overrate Negro League players is basically taken as fact, and then upped Foster's projection from that site to get him elected. I'll never understand this, and I never would have voted for Foster.

Where's the love for Dobie Moore? I'm his 3rd biggest supporter? Wow. Did everyone read the info on his thread? They convinced me he was pretty good - am I missing something?

Joe, there are two issues re Dobie Moore, I think.

1) How high was his peak? Best comps, in my view, are Frankie Frisch and Joe Cronin at their peaks; Moore was maybe a little better, but not much.

2) What to do with his short career -- military ball at one end, and a broken leg at the other?

I had to ask myself the question: If Frisch or Cronin had a nine-year career, where would I rank them? I don't think either of them, on nine years only, would be on my ballot.

If I thought Dobie Moore were as good, or nearly as good, in context as Hughie Jennings, then he would have made my ballot. I'd certainly consider carefully an argument that he was that good.

Considering that a lot of people aren't giving Hughie Jennings any support when he was, on good evidence, the best position player in baseball during his peak, it's not surprising that Dobie Moore, hasn't gained much traction, when he looks like he was "only" among the top ten position players in baseball during his peak. If that kind of quality goes along with a full career, it's an easy elect. But with a short career, it's tough.

It might be the case that the electorate is weighted too heavily towards career. Peak value has its champions, of course, but they are coming up on the low end of the consensus scores pretty consistently.

With Foster, we took a statistical mapping of him from a site, whose tendency to significantly overrate Negro League players is basically taken as fact, and then upped Foster's projection from that site to get him elected. I'll never understand this, and I never would have voted for Foster.

The tendency to overrate Negro League hitters is basically taken as fact. Chris found with Foster as well as the other semi-major eligible pitchers (Donaldson, Mendez) that the site is underrating Negro League pitchers.

HoMers by year (all players who were at least half-time players -- token appearances of fewer that c. 65-70 games omitted). Every year between 1881 and 1908 now has between 19 and 29 inductees. It's still a little unclear whether we experienced an 1880s bulge or an 1890s trough.

Absolutely. I can think of a scenario where Pearce would have gotten my vote, namely one where we were voting in the 1880's, but to paraphrase Chris Rock, "I'm not saying it's right, but I understand why people voted for him."

Glad to hear it, Mark. At least you weren't throwing darts at his face. :-)

The tendency to overrate Negro League hitters is basically taken as fact. Chris found with Foster as well as the other semi-major eligible pitchers (Donaldson, Mendez) that the site is underrating Negro League pitchers.

I don't buy it. i9 gives us career numbers for Smokey Joe Williams as 137 ERA+ in 6090 IP. Which gives him the same ERA+ as Cy Young and Kid Nichols, and somewhere right in the middle for playing time. Keep in mind that 6090 IP would place SJW 2nd all time. 137/6090 makes Christy Mathewson wish he hadn't been so da<i></i>mn rag-armed.

Now, I think Chris advocated a 5-10% increase for pitchers over what i9 suggests. Doing this for SJW puts him neck and neck with the greatest pitcher of all time (Big Train) at a minimum, and blows right past him like he wasn't even there at a maximum. From a guy who the consensus seems to rate as the 3rd best pitcher in Negro League history.

I've found a 15% discount on quality and a 10% discount on quantity to be appropriate for i9 hitters (YMMV). I'd advocate a smaller discount for pitchers, but a material one nonetheless. Boosting these numbers at all will lead to some funky conclusions.

From a guy who the consensus seems to rate as the 3rd best pitcher in Negro League history.

I think that's an erroneous statement. First of all, who's the consensus second-best black pitcher after Paige? I think it's pretty clearly Williams. In fact, there are really no other candidates.

As you probably know, the most important poll for a Negro League All-Time Team -- the one conducted by the Pittsburgh Courier in 1952 -- named Williams the greatest Negro League pitcher of all time, over Paige. I happen to disagree with that poll, but it does show the extremely high regard in which Williams was held.

I attempted to show clearly how I reached my conclusions, based on the available data and my best understanding of how to make accurate translations of statistics from one level of competition to another. So far no one who objects to my conclusions has shown where my methods are in error. They may be in error, but until someone _shows_ that, I have to do the best I can.

For the record, I don't suggest a blanket increase for pitchers. I studied the data for each of the three pitchers I have evaluated -- Foster, Donaldson, and Mendez -- and in each case it looked to me like a 5% boost in their statistics over the i9s projections was appropriate. Whether that will be true for every pitcher I have no idea. It's therefore no argument against my treatment of Rube Foster to say that i9s thinks Smokey Joe Williams was the greatest pitcher ever. They may be overrating him.

On the hitting side, I think they overrate Bill Monroe quite a lot, so much so that I don't use their projections at all for him, but they seem much more accurate on Poles, Santop, and Torriente. There may be similar variations in accuracy on the pitching side.

I've found a 15% discount on quality and a 10% discount on quantity to be appropriate for i9 hitters (YMMV).

How do you reach this conclusion? Your modifications may be much more appropriate than mine, but I need to see the basis for the discount in order to make a decision about that.

As you may have inferred by now, you will be reading more from Eric Enders hereon, and less from me. Beside his knowledge of black baseball, he is Chair-in-waiting for the Deadball Era Committee, SABR. I suppose he will plug the DEC now and then.
I give my all to the 19th Century now, but I still maintain the "Resources" websites for both research committees, which are the only websites we have. Deadball Era Resources has lots that is probably interesting to outsiders, and little business. 19th Century Resources, vice versa, but the little that is probably interesting to outsiders will be very interesting to some. Deadball Era Resources

<objects to my conclusions has shown where my methods are in error. They may be in error, but until someone _shows_ that, I have to do the best I can.</i>

To be clear, I'm not slamming you, Chris. You clearly know more about Negro League baseball than I do, and I think your efforts were good ones, even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion.

For the record, I don't suggest a blanket increase for pitchers. I studied the data for each of the three pitchers I have evaluated -- Foster, Donaldson, and Mendez -- and in each case it looked to me like a 5% boost in their statistics over the i9s projections was appropriate. Whether that will be true for every pitcher I have no idea.

This is shaky, to me. A system that has individualized adjustments based on how i9 matches up with your evaluations of various players is not much of a system. It's a verification of your own rankings. Which is fine, except it doesn't do people who don't know much about the Negro Leagues (like me) much good. I'm willing to assume that the i9 translations were applied evenly and fairly, and that the stats they were applied to were best available numbers. If those are true, then a blanket adjustment should be appropriate.

How do you reach this conclusion? Your modifications may be much more appropriate than mine, but I need to see the basis for the discount in order to make a decision about that.

I used two of the best Negro League outfielders to start. I ran the i9 numbers for Charleston and Torriente. Charleston: (173 OPS+, 13299 AB). Torriente: (146, 9222). Then I grabbed 20 or so of the best white outfielders from the pre-WW2 era. Basically, I wanted to retrofit Charleston's numbers so that he was at the top of the heap...a sure-fire first ballot guy, but not necessarily the absolute best. When I dropped his OPS+ 15 points, and multiplied his AB by 90%, it matched him almost exactly with Tris Speaker, which seemed pretty fair. Similarly, the same adjustment on Torriente put him in the Simmons/Wheat/Goslin/Keeler category. Definitely a HoMer, but not necessarily a guy that has to go 1st ballot.

This is shaky, to me. A system that has individualized adjustments based on how i9 matches up with your evaluations of various players is not much of a system. It's a verification of your own rankings.

What I use _is_ a system – a systematic translation of the available statistics compiled by Negro-League players into major-league equivalents. In order to turn these translations of fragmentary statistics into statistics that are more readily comparable to the full panoply of major-league statistics, I accept the i9s projections of major-league playing time, though I note if their projection departs significantly from the recorded shape of the Negro-League career. I then apply my own calculations of value to that playing time. I use the i9s numbers only when I am reasonably sure that they are fairly close to accurate. I have not used the i9s projections for Bill Monroe, because I can't see any consistent relation between them and the statistical record. In most cases, the i9s project position players about 5% better than I translate them to be, but the standard I use is my translation of actual data, not the i9s projection.

The translations I use are based on examinations of the statistical record of players facing negro-league competition and major-league competition. The most important body of evidence is the group of players who made the transition from the Negro Leagues to the majors when that became possible. I compared their batting statistics in both leagues to establish an average translation multiple for batting average (since that's the most commonly available Negro-League stat). I've further tested that multiple by looking at earlier negro-league players' averages against major-league competition and at the overall w-l record of black teams vs. ml teams in order to confirm that this conversion ratio based on data from the 1940s is also applicable in earlier periods. I've taken the standard multiplier as .87, which can be moved up or down due to estimated park factors. This multiple fits well with the estimates for translating statistics offered by McNeil in _Cool Papas and Double Duties_ and with the assumption that the Negro Leagues were somewhere between Triple A and the majors in quality. (For stats accumulated against all competition, I use .7 as a multiplier.)

I apply these translations to the available data and try to assemble as full an account of the player's career stats as I can. Then I translate those statistics compare them to the i9s projections to decide how, if at all, to use the i9s to fill out the picture.

I'm willing to assume that the i9 translations were applied evenly and fairly, and that the stats they were applied to were best available numbers. If those are true, then a blanket adjustment should be appropriate.

I guess this seems to me to be a shaky assumption. Since the i9s folks don't publish their methods, we can't know how they do it. I believe they are fair-minded, but I don't think the available stats permit perfectly even, objective application of a projection system. Since the available data are often inconsistent and the i9s folks are sometimes building constructions were no solid data exists, they must make a series of judgment calls on what data to trust or how to weigh conflicting data. So I don't believe that in looking at the i9s projections, we're looking at the products of a purely mathematical process that turns Negro-League statistics into projected major-league careers. I think their results are much more likely to be reliable than anecdotal evidence, however, in that they are giving full and considered attention to players who haven't been blessed with enduring reputations – like Jules Thomas.

More importantly, I also doubt that the biases in the system are necessarily the same for both hitters and pitchers. Here's why. As I describe above, my approach to the i9s batting projections has been to check them against consistently calculated translations of actual data, and I've been reassured about use of i9s by the usual ratio between their projections and my translations. When I made the same comparisons of my translations to their projections for pitchers, I found that the usual ratio didn't hold at all. Where my translations showed i9s as consistently overrating hitters just a bit, it showed them to be underrating pitchers.

So I studied the data I had, especially that on Jose Mendez, since he has such well-documented play against major-league competition. You can see my full description of my analysis on the Mendez thread. I concluded that, if i9s is overrating Negro-League hitters (as most agree they are) that could lead them to underrate Negro-League pitchers, in general, by an equivalent amount if they are using head-to-head competition with major-league teams as a way of getting benchmarks for pitchers, because they would give the Negro-League batters more credit for the teams' success in play vs. major-league competition. I believe there is evidence of this in their Mendez projections. I also suspect, although I cannot confirm, that they are using major-league ratios between earned runs and unearned runs in projecting major-league ERAs for their pitchers. Since the data we have from the Negro-Leagues typically provides simple RA information rather than ERA, I suspect they are assigning a bit too much responsibility to pitchers for runs allowed and not enough to the fielders. Work on Foster, for whom there is some available ERA vs. RA data, suggests that this is the case, but I don't have enough examples to be sure.

All this is to try to explain why I found that the principle you've followed -- that discounts to i9s used for hitters should be applied also to pitchers -- didn't fit the translated data at all, even though it sounds reasonable on the face of it.

If anyone sees errors of fact or reasoning here, please point them out!

I have to agree that Chris' projections for Negro Leaguers look awfully generous, and I include hitters as well as pitchers. Just my "impression," and I will admit that Chris has given it a lot more thought than me and I cannot provide any evidence for my "impression." But it's my impression nevertheless.

OTOH I already have Rube Foster in my PHoM anyway, and even if I didn't I would have to say that, hey, Rube ran the gauntlet--i.e a month or two of discussion (like Al Spalding before him).
The guy who really skated, IMHO, was Pete Hill.
Santop OTOH really does look like a NB.

But looking forward, re. the Negro Leaguers, the curmudgeonly POV would urge some caution:

• I think Satchel Paige is the overrated P in the mix. Everybody raves about him but the data isn't there IMO. I think Paige served up a lot of his own special kool-aid over the years, and everybody drank, and now it's too late to back down. Smokey Joe, OTOH, looks like the real deal, and I'm not sure Bill Foster wasn't as good or better than Satch. Sure he's a HoMer but the greatest Negro League pitcher ever? It's not clear clear to me.

• No question about Pop Lloyd. But was Torriente really "Clemente"? And if he was as good as Roberto, remember that Clemente was no Aaron, Mays, Robinson or Mantle. Torriente is a HoMer, too, but not a NB. Not sure Dihigo and Willard Brown aren't better.

• And I'm wondering if Ben Taylor gets lost or gets a boost from sitting in the reflected glory of the class of '34. Fortunately, there will be no hurrying Ben no matter what.

I have to agree that Chris' projections for Negro Leaguers look awfully generous, and I include hitters as well as pitchers. Just my "impression."

It's worthwhile to apply the sniff test to translations and projections, but beyond that I would encourage everyone to evaluate them by judging the methods rather than the results, both in this case of mine and in the case of others. It's the fact that we really don't know precisly how good the Negro-League players were that we have to be careful about relying too much on impressions.

It's also the case that in evaluating any particular player, we all disagree a lot for reasons that have to do with our interpretation of the numbers, rather than on the numbers themselves. Sunnyday had already put Foster in his PHOM, but he thinks my numbers are a bit too high. I hadn't put Foster in an elect-me slot on my ballot yet, on the basis of my own numbers. We might get farther in our discussions of Negro-League candidates if we focused a bit more on our differences in the ways we turn stats into merit as well as on differences in how negro-league stats are turned into major-league equivalent stats.

For example, Dobie Moore supporters will need to work on peak vs. career arguments if they want their man to get more love.

It sure looks like Ben Taylor is not going to get a lot of attention before 1934; he'll definitely have to "run the gauntlet," as he should.

Chris, PHoM and an elect-me position are two different things, no? I never had Rube in an elect-me position either, but of course that's because I have approx. 9 (not sure exactly any more) PHoMers still on my ballot. He made my PHoM from the 5th slot, I think. Is Rube in your PHoM?

As for evaluating the methods, anything that starts with the I9s (like WARP) is beyond such an analysis, is it not? I mean, I don't think we know exactly how either of them is calculated in the first place, so any adjustments are somewhat in the dark?

BTW, it took me until about 1903 to get WARP into my system, and it took until about 1932 to get it out. I don't reference WARP anymore after the last changes for all the reasons everybody has been discussing. I mean, what exactly did Waddell and Duffy do in 1932 to move them up in the balloting?

Yes, PHOM and elect-me positions are two different things; I can't really say PHOM for myself because I don't have one; I've never been satisfied enough with my analysis of the early players to reconstruct seasons for the years that I missed at the start of the project. I don't think I would have elected Foster yet, but I can't quite be sure.

I think you like him better than I do because you give more weight to peak, and that's fine.

As for evaluating the methods, anything that starts with the I9s (like WARP) is beyond such an analysis, is it not?

Certainly. My methods do not start with i9s but with the available stats and the MLE translations I've worked out. I am greatly desirous of critical analysis of these methods that will help to corroborate them or refute them. In other words, I'm trying to get people to tear apart my conclusions in ways that will improve them :-/.

If my results don't pass your sniff test, then by all means don't use them.